That man Dawkins

OK. I think I understand what you mean by straw man now. But what is wrong with pulling apart the details of beliefs that you think are leading some (admittedly not all) people astray? Isn't that just what philosophy and theology do? And isn't opposing opinions (straw men) that actually exist, even if they are only held by some people, what it's all about? It seems to me that all you're saying, over and over again, lily is that Dawkins should shut up because you don't like him.

I say why should he?

"as rigid in their views as atheists believe" (*nag*)
Which atheists have said all religious people are rigid in their beliefs?

Dawkins is not talking about ordinary religious peole. He's taking about the religious beliefs that cause trouble because of the effect they have on the reasoning powers of some people. If a thing has a bad effect on anyone, surely that's something that it is worth trying to change? And Dawkins' way of trying to change things is through reason and logic. He has nothing against belief per se. Everyone, including every atheist, has beliefs. It's what the beliefs are based on that he's bothered about and what those beliefs seem to 'make' people do to other people.

One of his main arguments is the damage religious indoctrination can (note the word 'can') do to children's minds so that they grow up unable to reason logically and, therefore, end up with all kinds of daft prejudices which they then use to interfere with other people's choices.

This thread started with sweeping and factually incorrect statements about Dawkins, who was spoken of in the title as "that man Dawkins". You don't have to like the man, you don't have to agree with the man, but for pity's sake, stop saying things about him and about what he says and does which are factually and actually incorrect!

Good one lilygran

I think Anagram is making the same point I've been trying to make. Quite a lot of debate on religion on Gransnet is based on the 'straw man' rhetorical device in which opinions etc are assigned to the opponent and then rebutted. Dawkins does the same. It's easy enough to say, 'Of course, these opinions etc aren't held by everyone in this category' and then choose to ignore all the exceptions you have admitted and carry on pulling the straw apart.

'any certain one'?
Should have read 'all members of any one religion are as rigid...etc.'

I have an open mind, Bags. I'm not speaking for anyone else. I just don't think all members of any certain one are as rigid in their views as atheists believe.

Bags You say everything I feel. I too have read the God Delusion and found it explained everything I felt about religion. How can one believe in one god but not another. What's the difference? Who proved that the other gods are false gods and their's is the only true god? I think science can explain most 'miracles' that were considered miracles in the distant past. Religion seems to be the cause of some of the most terrible episodes in history. Dreadful things done in the name of religion. If there were a god or gods, would he/she/they want these things done in his/her/their name?

And all the beliefs and articles of faith associated with them all?

Lots of Hindu gods and goddesses. What about them?

So are the gods. Are you saying christians and muslims believe in Thor, or Athena, or the Celtic or Icelandic gods and goddesses, or the gods and spirits of indigenous Americans, Australians, etc etc?

They're all aspects of the same 'god'. I don't think that all Christians, Muslims etc. believe that the 'god' of other religions doesn't exist. They may not agree with the practices of other religions, but those are man-made.

I found the scale thing. It is in The God Delusion but in a different chapter. p50-51 in my hardback copy.

The scale is 1 to 7. Dawkins puts himself at number six and calls that the De facto atheist, by which he means this: "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

And another way. If you're a christian or a muslim you believe in one god. You don,t believe in any of the others that people have beleieved in over human history. Atheists are exactly the same as you except that they add the god you do believe in to the list of those they don't believe in. So simple. So easy to understand.

So why do people persist in misunderstanding?

To put it another way, atheism means that there have been and are not known to you any gods you believe in.

It does not mean that there are no gods.

The fact that most atheists don't actually care, or think it matters whether there is a god or gods is a completely separate issue.

Exactly, feetlebaum. Dawkins is not absolutely sure. Anyone who suggests he is, or that he has said he is, is wrong. In fact, there is a whole chapter in the God Delusion called "Why there is almost certainly no God". What don't people understand about the word "almost"?

I forget if it's in that book or another one where he expresses his position on a scale. He is not right at the end that says with certainty that there is no god.

I don't actually know anyone who professes to be an atheist who says with certainty that there is no god. That's not what atheism means. Being an atheist means you haven't yet come across a god that you believe in/believe exists. That's all.

Once again, to those who persist in putting words he has never said into Dawkins' mouth, I can only suggest you actually read or listen to (and digest) what he actually says. Until then you are just shooting yourselves in the foot over and over again.

Dawkins is NOT absolutely sure - no scientist ever is. He says that the probability of a god's existence is there, but it's vanishingly small. "No, I do not unequivocally KNOW there is not a God, it's just that the evidence doesn't demand the hypothesis (thank you Messr. LaPlace) and the probability, given other simpler explanations for natural phenomena (thank you Mr. Occam), make it extremely improbable."

HL Mencken? "Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable."

Bags is right about this:"I think joan simply sees the value of rational thought over the irrational thought processes of some people of faith."

I have found there is little point in arguing religion v atheism, but sometimes I just can't help myself! Mea culpa

I don't think that's the case, Bags. I'm sure there are many people who self-identify as atheists who are still not 100% sure just as I know there are many (most?) people of faith who are still questioning. That 's one reason why Dawkins' absolute, unwavering stance is worrying. He did the analysing and thinking and now he doesn't need to any more because he's reached the final point? He knows, absolutely what the truth is.

She is entitled to her view, but many people, including me, don't think anything is sacred, nor sacrosanct. Everything, to my way of thinking, is open to question and discussion. I think that is the fundamental difference between people who think within a religious framework and people who don't.

Butternut Perhaps sacrosanct might have been a better word than sacred, in this context?

I like you sentiments re. labels, B

I've been following this thread, and have wanted to say my bit, but I have guests staying and haven't been able to afford the time to formulate my thoughts succinctly enough. Anyway, I happened to be having a quick read in bed this morning, about Marilynne Robinson's writing, which frequently addresses and questions about theology and her faith, and one of her comments jumped out at me.

"I think the autonomy of human experience is sacred and however people negotiate these questions is not for me to judge."

....still thinking about that, and the use of the word 'sacred'.

I'm not fence sitting regarding the issue of faith, but am always interested in how others see it.

I'm sure grannyactivist won't mind me saying that I doubt if there's very much real difference in attitude to life between her and me. We just have different labels. Looking forward to meeting you next month, ga

Way to go, Grannyactivist. Atheism is not the only logical end of the questioning and thinking journey that a lot of us go through.

I think joan simply sees the value of rational thought over the irrational thought processes of some people of faith.

Yes, there are millions of christians and muslims and so on who do not have the prejudices of the minority, but it is the minority that we in the majority (whether religious or not) hear about, and it is the minority who cause problems for all of us whether religious or not. It tends to be atheists who are most vociferous about this problem that affects all of us, whether religious or not. Certainly I would have more respect for the silent majority of christians and muslims (it does seem to be mainly those two) if they were a bit more vociferous too and also did vociferous battle with the nutters.

Has anyone on this thread said that having a religious faith necessarily makes one opposed to science, or has it simply been pointed out that in some cases that is most certainly the case. History cannot be denied either. Religions, and particularly christianity in our culture, has and still does oppose advancements in scientific knowledge to the detriment of many people. For example, look at the problems that have been caused by the catholic church opposing the use of condoms in areas where there is a high incidence of HIV infection. It is a religious belief here that is getting in the way of a humanitarian approach to a human problem. Why don't the silent majority complain about this? Why is it left to people like Dawkins, who are then abused for their efforts to improve life for other people?

Joan, I'm not sure why you are 'gratified' that there are more 'rational thinkers' (and that begs a question in itself) than Christians. It may be that vociferous atheists simply post more frequently. It doesn't matter either way. This should be a forum for debate, not number counting.

It's sad that once again a straw man is set up. There are certainly some extremely bigoted Christians and Muslims who have been unable to accept gay rights, but there are millions more who totally disagree with them and fully support total equality. Just as there are many bigots who have no religious belief, and are deeply predudiced about gay people.

Having a religious belief does not equate with being opposed to 'science'. It's a category error to assert this. Have you read Bultmann?

We are getting closer to inderstanding how life on this planet started though. Science is finding out bit by bit. Wonderful!